Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Let's drop it, then.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Commissioner. Where were we?

Mr. van Koeverden, go ahead. It's your turn.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Commissioner and officials. We really appreciate it.

Repeatedly on this committee, it has been suggested that the United States is lowering its emissions in the absence of any carbon pricing mechanisms, although 12 states—home to over a quarter of the U.S. population and accounting for a third of U.S. GDP—have active carbon pricing programs that are successfully reducing emissions. Those states include California, which has a GDP almost twice the size of Canada's; Washington state; and then 11 northeast states.

Would you characterize that if they are diminishing emissions in the United States, if they—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me.

Do you have a point of order?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes. It actually is a point of order this time.

I'd just like some clarity on a previous decision of yours regarding the use of a member's question time to move a motion.

To my recollection, you have said in the past basically that if you move a motion during your time, the remaining time is null and void. The clock is not starting and stopping.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand that, but this was really a quick future business matter. I'll ask the clerk if I have any room to manoeuvre on this. If I do, I'm going to take it.

The intent here wasn't to delay the committee; it was just to make sure that we can invite the minister to discuss the supplementary estimates (B), because if we don't have a motion, we can't invite him to discuss them. I think it's to the advantage of the opposition that we pass this motion.

Therefore, I don't believe we should take away from Mr. van Koeverden's time, but I will ask the clerk if I'm allowed to do that.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

On that point of order, Mr. Chair, I'll be honest. In good faith, I did it before my question so that I wouldn't be.... I could have done four minutes and then done the last minute with my motion, and then we would have had an amendment and everything. I did it with the assumption that I'd be able to do my question afterwards. It's just a short question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The clerk has informed me that I have discretion on this, so I'm not going to take away from Mr. van Koeverden's time.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, the Conservatives have continually suggested that the United States is lowering their emissions in the absence of any market-based instruments like carbon pricing or cap and trade. However, as I said, 12 states are home to over a quarter of the U.S. population and account for a third of GDP in the U.S.A. That includes California and 11 western states, as well as Washington state and others.

Would you characterize that as the absence of a carbon tax or the absence of any carbon-pricing mechanisms?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

There are carbon-pricing mechanisms in several states.

It should be recalled that subnational governments in Canada—Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec—were well ahead of the federal government in enacting carbon-pricing regimes. That's common to both countries: In the U.S., states took the initiative and enacted a price on carbon, and in Canada, the early adopters were Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, if I recall correctly.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

It was Ontario as well, with cap and trade.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes. I think it was a little later than the other three and it was short-lived, but yes, Ontario did so as well.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It's worth pointing out that it was short-lived because it was cancelled by Premier Doug Ford.

Provincial governments have also taken credit for decisions such as, in the case of Ontario, eliminating coal-fired power. When a provincial government took the initiative and eliminated coal-fired power from the grid in Ontario, how did that have an impact on overall Canadian emissions at the time?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We have in our report the exhibit of the overall emissions, exhibit 7.1, but we can make available the underlying data to show that individual sectors have very different profiles.

Including the phase-out of coal-fired generation in certain jurisdictions had a huge effect on the profile for the electricity sector. It was rising in the nineties in transportation and oil and gas, but then it turned the corner and came down.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It might seem like a simplistic question, but would you recommend that provinces phase out coal in order to reduce our emissions?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Well, there's a regulation to that effect. It's not up to me to recommend policy, but there is a regulation that is supposed to make the attainment of the 90% renewable target in our Report 8 attainable. That's on the books already.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

Your report on the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act concluded that the pollution cap was facing “significant barriers”. Would you characterize the “scrap the cap” campaign from the Alberta government—driving Quebec trucks around Ottawa with their large illuminated billboards—as a significant barrier to the cap on pollution in the oil and gas sector?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Are you asking me how much the ad campaign is extending the timelines for that?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

No, just provincial opposition to—

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Okay. You mean what we're calling “multi-jurisdictional challenges”, as opposed to an ad campaign.

Yes, multi-jurisdictional challenges affected the timelines of several of the measures; however, the federal government does not have to keep consulting until they reach consensus. They do have the constitutional jurisdiction to enact regulations under CEPA and to enact a price on pollution under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Consultations shouldn't just keep going forever until a consensus is reached. At a certain point, a government has to make a decision.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I agree with you, Mr. Commissioner. I don't think there's been a consensus reached, yet just recently we did make an announcement that we were putting in place the cap on pollution.

Would you say, then, that you believe our government's announcement changes that assessment of the hurdle that we were faced with months and years ago with respect to the implementation of the cap on pollution in the oil and gas sector?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

It doesn't change our conclusion, because our report was based on the projection that the emissions cap would come in 2025, and that's still currently the plan. We're saying that it is slower than was anticipated when it was announced in 2021, so it is behind schedule. It's now on schedule for the updated behind-schedule schedule, if you know what I mean.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

One thing that we didn't address in this meeting is that in 2021 our government put in place a far more ambitious target of reducing our emissions by 40% to 45%, rather than the previously ordained 30%. One of my colleagues from the Conservative Party suggested that when I said we have already far exceeded that, with our projections being at 36%, that's what I was referring to.

We still have work to do in order to get to 40% to 45%: Four per cent is what our calculations indicate. We need more measures to lower our emissions. We need more provincial involvement and engagement on this. We need every jurisdiction to actively lower their emissions.

Would you agree with those characterizations?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'll give a quick answer.

I can't remember all the characterizations right off the bat—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We need more climate action, not less.